Sunday, January 23, 2005

Russert

Josh Marshall points us to this comment by Timmeh:

MR. RUSSERT: Many specific questions about Social Security. Right now we have a cost-of-living increase, a COLA increase, that is tied more to wages than actual inflation. It is inaccurate by everyone's estimation. Should that be adjusted in order to be accurate and specifically related to inflation?


About this Josh wrote:

But how about Russert's statement on the wage-indexing of Social Security benefits as opposed inflation-indexing? Russert said this method is “inaccurate by everyone’s estimation. Should that be adjusted in order to be accurate and specifically related to inflation?”

Somehow I thought that was up for debate?


Actually, I think Russert's crime here is more being an idiot, not that he's falsely asserting there's no debate (though he does that too).

I'm pretty sure Russert is conflating the issue of wage indexing with frequent assertions that that CPI overstates the true increases in cost of living. But, those complaints aren't about the CPI being "tied more to wages," they're just complaints that the CPI isn't being measured very well for a variety of reasons. As for that issue, my "pulled out of my ass" opinion is that even if the CPI does tend to overstate the cost of living for the population as a whole, it likely understates it for old people for whom health care expenditures are a pretty important component.

The wage index issue is about whether intial retirement benefit levels should be indexed to the CPI instead of the wage index. Subsequent increases are based on the CPI, meaning that your lifetime payout schedule is dependent on the year you retire...